On faith

That's Hebrews 11:1 from the Christian Bible. Can you explain what it means?

Is the first clause literally saying that faith is a substance? (Or is 'substance' being used metaphorically?)

Is the second clause literally saying that faith is evidence, allowing people to know things not otherwise knowable? That suggests that faith should be imagined as what Indian philosophy would call a pramana, a way (such as perception or logical inference) of acquiring true knowledge.

I think that many Christians do interpret 'faith' as 'trust' or 'confidence', as descriptive of their attitude towards whatever they are faithful about. (But not as a way of knowing things they wouldn't otherwise know.) I'm not sure if The God or the author of Hebrews were using the word that way.

Click to expand...

I see faith as an aspect of God. The verse says that faith is the substance of all things hoped for. That is to say that God is the underlying, fundamental reality of everything, and we exercise that faith when we sincerely hope for something. Hope is the evidence of faith, and faith is the evidence of an underlying, fundamental, reality, which is invisible to the eye.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen.

I'm asking him to accept that 'God IS' is my response, not that it is true. He must find that out for himself.

Click to expand...

If you read his responses it is quite clear (or is to most) that he clearly accepts it as your answer... It's not likely to be anyone else's given that he was conversing with you. It is also quite clear in what manner he was using the term "accept". Yet you, with your "honest" hat on, call him desperate for choosing a definition that doesn't match the one that you want.
Yep, that's just about right from you.

There is no victory in this thread. It is about 'Faith'.

Click to expand...

Then stop treating it like a war zone!

It is not about 'does God exist', or 'where is the evidence for Gods existence', under the guise of 'I want to know why you believe in God'.

Click to expand...

You are second guessing his motives and doing no one any favours. He has clearly explained why he is asking and, to be fair to him, it seems quite a legitimate line of inquiry. But no, you simply do what Jan does best: evade.
If you have no intention of following him down his line of inquiry then simply don't respond to him when it is clear that is where he wants to go. Instead you draw a battle-line and wage what quickly becomes a war, you arguing why you don't want to follow and doing your utmost to derail his inquiry, he explaining why it is a valid inquiry.
Honest? Yeah, good one, Jan.

Yes English is my first language.
Why?

Click to expand...

I've not come across people, other than non-native speakers, who are as incapable of you as discerning through context the intended meaning of words. If indeed your incapability is honest.

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

If you read his responses it is quite clear (or is to most) that he clearly accepts it as your answer... It's not likely to be anyone else's given that he was conversing with you. It is also quite clear in what manner he was using the term "accept". Yet you, with your "honest" hat on, call him desperate for choosing a definition that doesn't match the one that you want.
Yep, that's just about right from you.